Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (without surgery) compared with radiotherapy alone in localized carcinoma of the esophagus
Dossier post-publication
Source : Retraction Watch, jointe par DOI. OpenAlex consigne la rétractation dans is_retracted, un booléen sur un espace d'états à au moins quatre valeurs ; il ne peut donc exprimer ni une expression de préoccupation, ni une correction, ni un rétablissement, et les rapporte comme false, ce qui se lit comme « rien à signaler ».
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Esophageal carcinoma can be managed primarily with either a surgical or radiotherapeutic (non surgical) approach. Strategies to improve the outcome of either modality alone include the use of combined modalities. Combination chemotherapy radiotherapy is one approach that has been explored over the years with increasing application in clinical practice especially in North America. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the outcome of patients with localized esophageal carcinoma. Outcomes of interest include overall survival, cause specific survival, local recurrence, dysphagia relief, quality of life, acute and chronic toxicities. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane strategy for identifying randomized trials was combined with MeSH headings including esophageal neoplasms, radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined modality, drug therapy combination. MEDLINE, CancerLIT and EMBASE were searched using this strategy. In addition, the Cochrane library was also searched. References from relevant articles and personal files were included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in patients with localized esophageal cancer, with one arm employing radiotherapy alone, and one arm employing combination radiotherapy chemotherapy were included. Studies comparing non chemotherapy agents such as pure radiotherapy sensitisers, immunostimulants, planned esophagectomy, were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and the trial quality was assessed using both the Jadad scoring and Detsky checklist. Sensitivity analysis was planned to explore sources of heterogeneity where heterogeneity existed. The factors hypothesized a priori included combination versus sequential treatment, quality of study, biological effective radiotherapy dose (i.e. Radiotherapy dose) cisplatin versus non cisplatin containing trials, and 5FU versus non 5FU containing trials. Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence limits were used to assess the significance of the difference between the treatment arms. Absolute risk difference and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to express the magnitude of difference where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen randomized trials were included in the analysis. There were eight concomitant and five sequential radiotherapy and chemotherapy (RTCT) studies. The studies were analyzed separately due to observed heterogeneity across all the studies and biological considerations. Concomitant RTCT provided significant overall reduction in mortality at 1 and 2 years. The mortality in the control arms was 62% and 83% respectively. Combined RTCT provided an absolute reduction of mortality by 7% (95% CI 1-15%) and 7% (95% CI 0-15%) respectively. Expressed as NNT, this is 12 and 12 respectively. At longer follow up, the results were heterogeneous, cautioning against pooling of the data. There was a reduction in the overall local recurrence rate. The local recurrence rate for the control arms was in the order of 68%. Combined RTCT provided an absolute reduction of local recurrence rate of 12% (95% CI 3-22%) with a NNT of 9. There was significant increase of severe and life threatening toxicities with a NNH of 6, with this approach. The sensitivity analysis did not identify any factor that interacted with the results, or subgroup in which the benefit appear to be limited to. The results from the sequential RTCT studies were heterogeneous and could not be pooled. Factors hypothesized a priori did not identify any single source that could account for a significant component of the heterogeneity. Examining the results individually, there was no data to support clinical benefit. This approach was also accompanied by significant toxicities. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: When a non-operative approach is selected, then concomitant RTCT is superior to the RT alone. This approach is accompanied by significant toxicities. In patients who are in good general condition, and the risk benefit has been thoroughly discussed with the patient, co thoroughly discussed with the patient, concomitant RTCT should be considered for the management of esophageal cancer compared with radiotherapy alone.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».